gordontd

The problem comes when the call left on the table is not a Pass. I had a case where it was 1NT, which was doubled by LHO. This is fine if the third hand calls, as you could just rewind the whole auction under Law 36A, but otherwise this approach would lead to the fourth player being barred from bidding for the whole auction. When I've had this situation, I've ruled under Law 21B1a, that the bidding cards left on the table constituted misinformation. That allowed the doubler to change his call without penalty. Max Bavin agreed with me that this was a reasonable approach.

With four tricks to go, in a spade contract with the trumps drawn, dummy holds ♠A ♥ ♦KQx ♣ Declarer is on lead and says "OK?". RHO says "No", so declarer leads a diamond and LHO hops up with the Ace, after which declarer has the remaining three tricks. Had LHO played low, declarer would have lost two diamond tricks. What is the status of the "OK?" question? Do you think declarer had claimed? If not, do you think there is any problem with declarer having said this?

That's not forcing in Acol. You need to FSF with 3C, after which opener will rebid 3S and you have a better chance of getting to 6S.

No it doesn't.

It amazes me how rude some professionals can manage to be, and still get employed.

The revoke trick wasn't won by the offending player.

I see no reason why that should be so - especially opposite a third-in-hand opener.

Chrome is nice to use until you want to edit html source code.

Not often, sometimes. Because in Std Am you rebid minimum balanced hands with 2NT, sometimes concealing a four-card major. In Acol, if you rebid a balanced hand concealing a four-card major, you have enough extra to force to game.

Less often than conventional wisdom would have it.

What do you play a 2♠ rebid as showing?

They're going to have to play those 128 boards really fast.

He certainly was :rolleyes:

I have two partners with whom, in the context of a system based more on Acol than Std Am, we have the agreement that responder's reverses are only forcing for one round. It has the advantage that we can bid our suits in the natural order with a 4153 11-count for example. It has the disadvantage that having done so, opener now needs to blast to game with a 14-count, rather than just raising. Which has the further effect that you can't improvise by rebidding a strong three-card suit. In a strong-NT context, you need responder's reverses to be forcing to game because opener might rebid 2NT with a minimum hand concealing a four-card major. In a weak-NT context, if opener rebids 2NT concealing a four-card major, the hand will be strong.

You play a natural 2C?

One approach: 1M-2m-2NT shows 6+ in the major 1M-2m-2M shows a five-card major, either balanced or minimum unbalanced Reverses & high-reverses are natural and show extras

I would expect that to be the undiscussed meaning.

I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game.

You better hope that partner doesn't think too much before bidding 3♠, if you really do intend to bid 4♠ irrespective of whether he signs off after 3♣.

More to the point, is partner prohibited from bidding 4♠?

3♦/4♦, according to agreement, will avoid you playing in spades when hearts are better, but will also probably lock you into hearts when NT might be better.

I think I'm worth a try (♥K notwithstanding) so I bid my second suit.

5♦ on the first round.

The hand you gave us only has 7 losers.

I don't think so - it suggests the clubs are not long, but could still be double-stopped.